Near Death experiences to atheist

[1137]

Ok well IMO the thread is dead. Banging your head against the wall is actually more productive than wasting time on fideists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Seriously, how do you know they weren't actually OBEs?

And since we can't see/measure what's physical/etheric/astral your experiences are unexplained aren't they.

How do you know that you aren't connected to the internet by magic pixies?

I mean, even if we know that electrical and fibre optic signals can connect a person to the internet, that doesn't mean that they must. Maybe this time, magic pixies did it even though more mundane explanations are available.

 

[George-ananda]

How do you know that you aren't connected to the internet by magic pixies?

I mean, even if we know that electrical and fibre optic signals can connect a person to the internet, that doesn't mean that they must. Maybe this time, magic pixies did it even though more mundane explanations are available.

The mundane explanation starts from the worldview we subscribe to.

If you're a materialist then the mundane explanation of OBE (and all experiences) is a strictly physical one.

If you take the Vedic/Theosophical worldview then the mundane explanation is that the physical/etheric/astral/mental/causal bodies are involved in all mental phenomena.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The mundane explanation starts from the worldview we subscribe to.

If you're a materialist then the mundane explanation of OBE (and all experiences) is a strictly physical one.

If you take the Vedic/Theosophical worldview then the mundane explanation is that the physical/etheric/astral/mental/causal bodies are involved in all mental phenomena.

The mundane explanation is the one that satisfies Occam's Razor ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity").

It's physically possible that every night while I sleep, people sneak into my house to disassemble all my furniture and then put it all back together again, but there's no reason to think that people are doing this, so we don't accept the idea (right?).

In the same way, even if we allow for the possibility that OBEs are real, there's no reason to assume that Alceste's dreams about being outside her body mean that she really was outside her body.

 

[George-ananda]

The mundane explanation is the one that satisfies Occam's Razor ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity").

As I believe in the existence of phenomenon not explainable in a physicalist worldview, then there is a necessity to multiply the entities beyond physicalism.

It's physically possible that every night while I sleep, people sneak into my house to disassemble all my furniture and then put it all back together again, but there's no reason to think that people are doing this, so we don't accept the idea (right?).

Right, we don't accept the idea because it seems a ridiculous thing to believe.

In the same way, even if we allow for the possibility that OBEs are real, there's no reason to assume that Alceste's dreams about being outside her body mean that she really was outside her body.

As I said in my last post, the natural explanation is derived from our worldview.

(edit: for correctness, I didn't assume Alceste had an OBE - I questioned if she thinks she might have)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Seriously, how do you know they weren't actually OBEs?

And since we can't see/measure what's physical/etheric/astral your experiences are unexplained aren't they.

Just clarifying that he hasnt offered explanations. Just said we dont ow everything about consciousness yet, and he doesnt know how to explain that situation, basically.

Even if such experiences are unexplained, it still does not follow that they are proof of a soul/afterlife/God, or anything else. This is, as I said already, a fallacious inference- specifically, an argumentum ad ignorantium

As it happens, there are available neurological explanations for NDE's- I posted a link on this thread that contained one such.

 

[Alceste]

The mundane explanation is the one that satisfies Occam's Razor ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity").

It's physically possible that every night while I sleep, people sneak into my house to disassemble all my furniture and then put it all back together again, but there's no reason to think that people are doing this, so we don't accept the idea (right?).

In the same way, even if we allow for the possibility that OBEs are real, there's no reason to assume that Alceste's dreams about being outside her body mean that she really was outside her body.

Heck, even I don't assume that. I'm not even convinced I possess any such thing as a "self" that could be located in a body or anywhere else.

 

[Alceste]

Seriously, how do you know they weren't actually OBEs?

And since we can't see/measure what's physical/etheric/astral your experiences are unexplained aren't they.

Yeah, they're unexplained, and that's OK with me. Of all the possible explanations, none are completely satisfactory to me. That's OK too. The most interesting possibility to me is that my brain is doing something really fascinating and bizarre. In the times my experiences have involved confirmation from others, I think their brains are doing something fascinating and bizarre too. Since I am not a mind-body dualist, the idea of a disembodied soul seems silly and unnecessary to explain what I experience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Heck, even I don't assume that. I'm not even convinced I possess any such thing as a "self" that could be located in a body or anywhere else.

Neither do I; I just wanted to make the point to George that this approach isn't about rejecting the supernatural; it's just about being rational.

 

[George-ananda]

Even if such experiences are unexplained, it still does not follow that they are proof of a soul/afterlife/God, or anything else.

I agree. My point is they would show the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview must be discarded.

This is, as I said already, a fallacious inference- specifically, an argumentum ad ignorantium

Glad I don't subscribe to an argument type that has 'ad ignorantium' in it

As it happens, there are available neurological explanations for NDE's- I posted a link on this thread that contained one such.

We are all aware here by now there are neurological and spiritual explanations out there. Perhaps the biggest argument against a strictly neurological explanation is the 'alleged' (see how fair I am) ability to know of events they couldn't have reasonably been known through normal channels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. My point is they would show the atheist/materialist/physicalist worldview must be discarded.

If that's your point, then you failed.

Glad I don't subscribe to an argument type that has 'ad ignorantium' in it

Actually, you did.

We are all aware here by now there are neurological and spiritual explanations out there. Perhaps the biggest argument against a strictly neurological explanation is the 'alleged' (see how fair I am) ability to know of events they couldn't have reasonably known through normal channels.

Are there any cases where someone who experienced an NDE actually did this? Your star case from before turned out to be less than compelling.

 

[George-ananda]

If that's your point, then you failed.


Actually, you did.

Wrong on both counts.....but I don't want to take the time energy.....

Are there any cases where someone who experienced an NDE actually did this? Your star case from before turned out to be less than compelling.

That star case was shown for a different reason than to show veridicality.

In past months I've multiple times referenced different cases for the veridicality issue. I might do it again later after my caregiver installs my helmet.

 

[Me Myself]

Attitude? No no, we must take into consideration when one's mindset has been partially molded by hallucinations. Now he may argue that somehow psychedelics magically have no effect on who we have become or anything, but we know better than that and that all experiences affect us.



And I am not saying otherwise. I was simply offering an explanation fully supported by science and reason.

He obviously has habits, his friend knows him, he was intoxicated so details are skewed, not to mention we simply change memories.

So you think not offering explanations is the same as not accepting explanations?

Tat's one mighty interesting interpretation.

Your explanation depended on both his and his friends recolection of the events be sufficiently flawed, maybe I missed the part where he said he was under some hallucinogenic substance when he recieved and saw the drawing?

 

[George-ananda]

In past months I've multiple times referenced different cases for the veridicality issue. I might do it again later after my caregiver installs my helmet.

George-ananda, this is your higher Self communicating to you. You know they told you the helmet is only so good and that you really need to stop this.

As a blessing to you I will fast forward the debate 50 posts to two and a half days from now.....


Final Skeptic post:

blah blah blah unreliability of memory blah blah blah blah stories retold blah blah confirmation bias blah blah blah undocumented blah blah blah just counting the hits blah blah during my surgery I knew all the works of Shakespeare blah blah blah blah and in the end George all you have is a few highly questionable stories...hardly impressive

 

[Alceste]

Neither do I; I just wanted to make the point to George that this approach isn't about rejecting the supernatural; it's just about being rational.

Oh yeah, totally. I don't reject anything, but it will be a long while before I work my way through all the naturalistic possible explanations and get around to considering the bizarre notion that consciousness is not dependent on a living brain to function.

 

[1137]

Final Skeptic post:

blah blah blah unreliability of memory blah blah blah blah stories retold blah blah confirmation bias blah blah blah undocumented blah blah blah just counting the hits blah blah during my surgery I knew all the works of Shakespeare blah blah blah blah and in the end George all you have is a few highly questionable stories...hardly impressive

Believer : MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC
Skeptic: fact, evidence, logic
Believer: nuh nuh nuh I can't hear you

I like these childish side steps, they're fun

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Also it helps to recognize that we are story telling apes. Our brains can't help but turn an atypical experience into an amazing story, and the story gets a little more amazing with every retelling. Even every recollection. We don't have a perfect filing system for memories. Every time we retrieve one it becomes a little more corrupted.

Sure doesn't feel that way though. It feels like all our amazing stories about our atypical experiences are a mounting body of evidence for some great mysterious force. Really, if you had that anomalous brain condition where you can remember absolutely everything, you wouldn't have any stories.

:faint:

I just had a little...I dunno. Epiphany is way too strong a word. Conniption?

Meh, whatever. Anyways, I worked with, and eventually, under a guy who had a mucho-freako memory. He could almost literally read a book, and then recall the 8th word on the 87th page 24 hours later. (I say almost literally...depends if he visited the pub in the intervening day)

It's certainly not total recall, but it's pretty damn impressive. And he was an extremely concrete person in certain ways. Not a storyteller at all, very logic and factually grounded. I think that was why we got along so well. I respect logic and factually-based thinking, but am forever making up stories about the world around me (I don't believe them, they just amuse me). Kinda gave him license to talk crap and accept that I knew it was crap and he knew it was crap...it was just for fun.

I'd never really considered whether his freaky memory informed his method of thinking. I'd always just figured he was a more extreme version of me. Something for me to ponder.

 

[George-ananda]

Neither do I; I just wanted to make the point to George that this approach isn't about rejecting the supernatural; it's just about being rational.

I love the way Alceste didn't question the part 'it's just about being rational'; as if 'George's position is not rational' is just a given between you guys.

All in good fun though

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I love the way Alceste didn't question the part 'it's just about being rational'; as if 'George's position is not rational' is just a given between you guys.

All in good fun though

No, it's not a given. I was just outlining what I think would be a reasonable approach. Whether you want to follow it is up to you; I'm not going to presume that you won't.

I'll consider whatever argument you make and weigh it on its merits. Now... based on our interactions in other threads, I don't trust your opinion any further than I could comfortably throw a fridge, so I won't accept an argument just on your say-so, but if you can back up what you say, I'm prepared to accept it. I don't dismiss anything automatically just because you say it; I just need corroboration.

 

[apophenia]

So you think not offering explanations is the same as not accepting explanations?

Tat's one mighty interesting interpretation.

Your explanation depended on both his and his friends recolection of the events be sufficiently flawed, maybe I missed the part where he said he was under some hallucinogenic substance when he recieved and saw the drawing?

My friend was not under the effects of drugs either. And her drawing was totally accurate, her details regarding the time were spot on, and she was so impressed by what had happened that she rang me at the crack of dawn to tell me about it.

My friends who contacted me after the K-space event - ditto. One of them was sleeping at the time, as I said, and woke up in an 'out-of-body' state hearing my bass playing. He also rang the next day to tell me this because he was shocked.

Maybe quantum physics will explain it one day. Or neurophysiology plus quantum physics.

Personally, I am surprised that someone could believe that the universe spontaneously appeared from nothing, and that inanimate matter could come to life and start writing poetry, but the same person can't imagine that it is possible that this kind of communication could take place.

I guess the difference is - their 'beliefs' are supported by men in white coats with clipboards and titles, and as Milgram and Zimbardo's experiment made clear, that makes all the difference.

And just for the record - the Big Bang theory is after all only a belief, supported by an interpretation of very little data. Yet somehow, these 'objective' rationalists are certain they know the truth. They actually know squat, but love indulging themselves in a sense of pride and achievement for discovering the truth about the universe. And really, for the dilettantes we have here in this thread, that is just an ego trip in the final analysis.

I have real experience of something, and accept that for the time being at least, there is no scientific explanation.

My detractor knows nothing about that experience, but is certain it could not have happened, because he has chosen to believe things he cannot verify.

And yet he believes he stands for objectivity. Oh, the irony.